The Darkness of Diversity

The darkness deepens; Lord with me abide! – H. F. Lyte

In his book Language is Sermonic, Richard Weaver made the point that every society has God words and devil words. Such words convey a meaning beyond the mere dictionary meaning of the words. Weaver used the words "democracy" and "reactionary" as examples of God and devil words. Both are still used today as God words and devil words, but there have been a number of new God words and devil words created by the liberals since Weaver wrote Language is Sermonic. A perusal of the new lexicon of God and devil words is like reading the pages of a tragic volume; it tells us the sad tale of the Europeans’ descent to oblivion.

The great God word of the liberals is diversity. Every college curriculum must have it, every business mandates it, and every neighborhood and school is supposed to celebrate it. What is this marvelous thing? It sounds even more wonderful than flubber, that miraculous substance Fred MacMurray invented in the Disney movie called The Absent-Minded Professor. After all the superlatives we’ve heard about diversity, aren’t we entitled to regard it as something more incredible than flubber? Yes, we are so entitled, and fortunately, the liberal informs us, diversity is just as beautiful and stupendous as we were told it is. Diversity is the cornerstone of paradise; it is what ushers mankind into the land of liberal milk and honey, much tastier and sweeter than the Biblical milk and honey which came with the taint of God upon it.

God words are seldom defined, and when they are they do not behave according to their definition. Diversity is supposed to mean a variety of differently colored people all living and working together inside of a great pleasure dome. But the outside observer (Martians are convenient for that type of work) notices that liberals do not mean varied when they use the word diversity; they mean a non-diverse monolith. The Martian observes formerly white countries with their own religion and their own culture based on that religion turning their country over to colored people. He further observes that the retreating whites forsake their God and worship the colored people as gods. He also notes that formerly white neighborhoods become all black neighborhoods, and formerly white customs and white traditions become banned customs and traditions, while all things pertaining to the worship of the Negro are proclaimed “diverse” and therefore sacred. The Martian observer leaves our planet in a daze and is unable to explain our bizarre double- and triple-speak to his fellow Martians.

The white leaders, the sons of Voltaire and Rousseau, talk diversity to the masses, but what they dream of is a non-diverse, non-white society. What about the white grazers? Do they really believe in the myth of “I’ll respect your culture and you’ll respect mine”? Yes, I suspect most of them do. The rationalist, scientific revolution was the prelude to Negro worship. Without their faith in Christ, the grazers lost their grip on reality. They became members of the liberal cult. Whatever their leaders tell them, they believe. And their leaders have told them that diversity means, “I’ll respect your culture and you’ll respect mine.” The white grazers would need the blinding sight that only comes from being an antique European to see that the white is not permitted his own culture; it has been labeled demonic. The antique European is only given the right to worship and serve the Negro. The “I’ll respect your culture and you’ll respect mine” gambit was only necessary for older whites who had a culture separate from the Negro culture. Now that every white child is taught “diversity” at his daycare provider’s knee, it is no longer necessary to tell whites that the Negro will respect their culture if they will respect the Negro’s, because the modern white man knows only one culture, the culture of Negro worship.

Diversity, as the liberal defines diversity, means the extinction of the white race. The colored hordes have always known what diversity means. That is why they support diversity in white nations while they outlaw it in their own nations. When the white nations have become diverse, in the liberal sense of the word, then the colored peoples will put an end to all diversity, in the actual sense of the word.

Racism has been a devil word in the European world for over half a century, but it does not mean what the straight dictionary definition says it means. Racism as a devil word can only be applied to white people. There are no black racists in Liberaldom. All white people are racists just by virtue of being white, but some whites are more racist than other whites. The racist whites, a vanishing breed, are the whites who persist in regarding white people and white culture as a people and a culture worthy of respect, love, and honor. That small remnant refuses to accept diversity. They are, according to liberal dogma, racist vermin who must be exterminated. The anti-white liberals who have denounced the white race have filled the spiritual void in their lives, caused by their rejection of the God of Europe, with a very real and personal hatred of antique Europeans and an abstract love of the black man. Their hate is more real to them than their love; hence, the primary passion of the liberal is his hatred for “racist” white Europeans who refuse to go gently into the dark night of diversity.

The heroes in the novels of the English author A. E. W. Mason and the Southern author Thomas Nelson Page all have one thing in common: they are uprooted from their one special spot of ground that they love over all, and must fight for spiritual and physical survival in foreign lands. In the case of Mason’s English heroes, the foreign land is usually India, and in the case of Page’s Southern heroes the foreign land is the North. But the heroes do not go to the foreign lands alone. They take their homeland and the code that sustains their homeland with them; it is in their blood. Hence, when Mason’s heroes face down howling devil worshippers, the servants of Kali, and prevail against all odds, they have made that spot of ground part of English soil, part of Christian Europe. And when the Southern heroes of Thomas Nelson Page refuse to abandon their bred-in-the-bone chivalry for the ethics of the utilitarian moneylenders of the North, they too have made foreign soil part of their soil, part of Christian Europe.

We few, we “racist” few, we Europeans, are in exile. But we hold Christian Europe in our blood, and wherever we fly our flag, that land remains Europe. There can be no compromise with the haters, because the essence of Liberaldom is the hate of white Europeans. How can they compromise and survive? They can’t and they won’t. Nor can we compromise. We can’t try to become part of Liberaldom, as the conservatives do, by proving that we are not racist. That policy doesn’t work, and it is a satanic policy because it requires that we renounce our blood. We are racist, we prefer our own to the stranger, and we hold Christian Europe as a sacred land separate and distinct from the colored lands. As Europe and the other white countries become colored countries, Christian Europe will become a vague memory and then a fantasy to the remaining Europeans still left alive. It is the task of the hero (and the remnant band of Europeans must assume the heroic mantle for the simple reason that there is nobody else) to make sure that Christian Europe remains a vivid reality to the liberals who hate it and the grazers who have forgotten it. We no longer have a country to return to as Alexander Smollet did, but we can still say, as Alexander Smollet did, that where we stand is Europe.

In the old Perry Mason novels and movies, Perry Mason is both the defender and the prosecutor. He defends his client by exposing the guilty party. We stand in that position vis-à-vis the antique Europeans and the culture they created. They are accused of the unpardonable sin, which is racism. And because of their alleged sin, the building of paradise has been delayed. The sentence of the liberal tribunal is death. Why have no clergymen come to the defense of Europe? Why is it left to the inarticulate peasant class? Because the Christian clergy heard the siren call of paganism and succumbed. In the pagan religions the sacred rituals performed with the proper wording, form, and ceremony, by a member of the elect priestly caste, is the way to God. 'Tis not so with Christ. His blood was our blood, and He comes to us through the blood, not the rite. The clergy jettisoned Christ our brother in order to hold on to their privileged status as keepers of the esoteric rites.

Have Europeans polluted the world and delayed the building of Utopia because they believed in Christ? No, the guilty party, the murderer of everything pure and decent is the liberal. There is an historical record. The only glimpse of charity and mercy ever seen on the face of the earth came from the antique Europeans, who have been convicted without a trial by the guilty-as-sin liberals. What have the liberals, after 60 plus years of power, produced? (1) “The result has been legalized abortion, war without the mitigating influence of chivalry, the absence of charity and mercy, sexual permissiveness and sexual perversion, the rise of the effeminate white male and the decline of the masculine white male, and the de-feminization of the white female. And at the top of the perverted list of European innovations is the innovation that holds Babylon together (or should we say keeps Babylon from being anything but Babylon): the worship of the Negro.” At present the liberals don’t even bother to defend themselves because their power is such that they don’t have to answer to anyone for their crimes. But in the early days of their reign, when they still felt unsure about the permanence of their triumph, they defended the more blatant crimes of Liberaldom, such as increased sexual promiscuity and rising black violence, as mere growing pains of a brave new world. When the Utopian system was completely in place, they insisted, there would be no more glitches in the machine. And who became the glitch that had to be eliminated? Yes, it was the remaining white Europeans who wanted to remain white Europeans.

All antique Europeans living in modern day Liberaldom face a crisis similar to those crises faced and overcome by the British grenadiers in the A. E. W. Mason novels. The liberals and their black minions are howling Afghans, Fuzzy-Wuzzies, and the devilish followers of Kali all rolled into one. It would seem that we, like Mason’s heroes, must fight on alone without hope of reinforcements. But we are not entirely alone. We take our European home, and the strength that those home associations give a man, into battle with us. The Christian European has never been afraid of the valley of the shadow of death, because he knows, with a faith bred-in-the bone, that the Son of God walks by his side. It is eventide for Europe, but no one’s death, and no civilization’s death, is a mathematical certainty so long as He abides with us. +

___________________

(1) I noticed a news item on the AmRen page that was one more proof of the ascendancy of liberalism over Christianity.

Young people, according to the post, now use the term “that’s racist” in a mocking way, much like an Eddie Haskell in a bygone era might have told a dirty joke in a church parking lot. The young people are being iconoclastic; they are poking fun at the establishment.

The liberals, despite trying to present themselves as downtrodden outsiders, are The Establishment. If a young white person wants to be truly anti-establishment, let him take up the cause of Christian Europe. It was a cross our ancestors gladly bore.

The Unbreakable Link Between European Culture and Christianity

Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion (Harvard University Press, 1998) by Edward J. Larson is not a partisan work; the author is not anti-evolutionist, but he does present an objective account of the Scopes trial and the prior and subsequent liberal and fundamentalist lobbying that went on before and after the trial. The debate is ongoing, and the topic has eternal consequences, so I can think of few non-fiction works more deserving of a reading than this book.

The author gives us a little background about the Christian fundamentalist movement, explaining that it came about in response to modernist interpretations of scripture. He also gives us a brief summary of the Darwinian concept of evolution and its status at the time of the 1925 Scopes “monkey” trial.

What happened in Dayton, Tennessee as depicted by Larson was something very different from the current liberal folklore. The basic facts were these: Tennessee passed a law that made teaching Darwinian evolution as fact instead of as mere theory illegal. The law was on the books but not enforced. By pre-arranged plan, Scopes, an inconsequential part-time teacher, in conjunction with the ACLU, decided to challenge the law. Scopes taught evolution as fact and invited the authorities to prosecute him. They did. William Jennings Bryan, populist, anti-capitalist, and anti-evolutionist, was the leader of the prosecuting team. Ironically, the ACLU was not interested in the religious aspect of the case but wanted to challenge the notion that a state’s right to control what was taught in its public schools was not as important as an individual’s right to free expression. Larson notes that at the time -- 1925 -- the Supreme Court had not yet discovered the establishment clause of the 14th Amendment which forbade the teaching of religion in the schools. Darrow entered the picture against the wishes of the ACLU. His interest was in the science vs. religion aspect of the case.

The popular liberal view of the case’s disposition is that Bryan and the prosecuting team won a minor legal victory while Darrow and company won a great victory for humanity, etc. The actual facts were quite different. Larson notes that people at the time were equally divided about who had won. The fundamentalists thought Bryan had won, and many of the middle-of-the-roaders thought Bryan had at least held his own. Only the most hardened atheist liberals, like H. L. Mencken, thought Darrow and company had won a resounding victory against the fundamentalists.

Two popular works of fiction, however, changed the popular opinion of what actually happened at the trial: Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the Nineteen Twenties and the infamous play and movie, Inherit the Wind. Both works were shameless liberal travesties of the truth, and Larson presents them as just that.

Larson also gives us the aftermath of the trial. The ACLU, during the Warren era, had more individual rights’ decisions go in their favor and against religion than they ever had deemed possible in 1925. Bryan died five days after the trial ended and would be repudiated much later by Jerry Falwell and other Protestants because he was anti-capitalist and because he wavered on the ‘twenty-four hour, seven days’ creation theory. Scopes, on the other hand, got a free graduate education and a free ride throughout the rest of his life as a result of his accidental, phony, and liberal-credited martyrdom.

Larson points out that the evolution issue has not died. The fundamentalists are still fighting the battle, only now the fight, as Larson points out, is not to keep evolution out of the schools but to put creationism in.

Larson, interestingly, also notes that Roman Catholics were on the sidelines during the evolution debate, their church allowing them some leeway between the liberal position and the fundamentalist one. My own sympathies are with William Jennings Bryan, and I think the Catholics err when they cozy up to the evolutionists. “He does not win who plays with sin,” or with monkeys, for that matter. I also think of Herman Melville’s thoughts on the subject: “If Luther’s day expand to Darwin’s year, Shall that exclude the hope—foreclose the fear?”

The question always arises, when dealing with the issue of evolution, “Why couldn’t God have set the evolutionary process in motion and when it was completed, breathed life into the first man? Wouldn’t that be just as much of a miracle as the creationists’ story?” Of course it would have been just as much of a miracle, but that isn’t the point. God did not choose that method of producing the first man, that is, if we can trust the scriptural account. Ah, there is the rub. The evolutionists do not trust the scriptural account. And if you were to ask them why they don’t credit the scriptural account of creation, they would claim, as a reason for their disbelief, that the scriptural account of the creation of man is unscientific, which usually ends all argument. Who wants to be unscientific?

In one of his many masterpieces, Language is Sermonic, Richard Weaver points out that every society has God words and devil words; these are words that come to mean much more than the dictionary definition of the word. He suggested that ‘democracy’ had become a God word, just as ‘reactionary’ had become a devil word.

I would suggest that ‘scientific’ has become a God word. The dictionary defines it thus:
“Of, relating to, or employing the methodology of science.” But the liberals who run our society mean something quite different when they use the word. When they say something is scientific, they mean that it is true, and true in a self-evident, empirically, discernible way. That is why the liberals claim they reject the Biblical view of the creation; it is not scientific. And it is certainly true that the truth of the Biblical account cannot be proved ‘scientifically’; it is a matter of faith. What kind of faith would it be if it wasn’t unseen? But it is equally true that the liberal’s belief in evolution is a faith, not a scientific fact. They accept on faith the existence of the empirical fact of an actual missing link that proves the Darwinian theory. So it is an issue of two competing faiths, not one of faith vs. scientific fact. And when two faiths collide, the final arbiter is the heart of man. What do our intuitions about the nature of existence tell us? Well, we feel in our hearts, and we observe in the hearts of others, a divine presence. From that touchstone of reality, we begin the journey that leads to the foot of the cross. And from that point we accept, on His word, the revealed truth of the creation of the world. It is not scientific fact; it is something more certain; it is faith.

In contrast, the faith of the liberal does not square with reality. Liberals intuit no divine presence in themselves or in other human beings and view the natural world as something that sprang into existence without purpose or design. And yet their faith operates by one absolute, inexorable law: the law of hate. Bryan put it quite well: “The Darwinian theory represents man as reaching his present perfection by which the strong crowd out and kill the weak.” All the blather from the liberal leftists about peace and love is just that – blather. Undergirding their faith is hate. Their forerunners, the liberal capitalists, were simply blunter about their social Darwinism.

Now let’s venture beyond the parameters of Larson’s book and look at the fundamentalist movement today and see how that movement helps or hinders the white Christian. The term, fundamentalist, is a relatively new term. Protestant Christians started using it in the early 20th century to distinguish themselves from the Christians who did not believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures. I have no statistics on the subject, but I would guess that initially, in the early part of the 20th century, fundamentalist Christians were a rather sizeable minority nationwide and quite probably a majority in the South. But by the later part of the 20th century and certainly now in the 21st century fundamentalists represent a very tiny minority of those who call themselves Christian.

While agreeing with the fundamentalists on the inerrancy of scripture, I must say that the modern fundamentalists such as the late Rev. Falwell and the prolific author Henry M. Morris (The Long War Against God) have preserved Holy Scripture at the expense of Christianity. And I say this because the fundamentalists, as represented by Falwell and Morris, have in the name of creationist theology jettisoned the European cultural heritage. This might seem like a minor thing; after all, what is a cultural heritage compared to the Holy Bible? But in cutting us off from the European cultural heritage, they have cut us off from the living God who is the source of the Holy Bible. Let’s backtrack a little.

Martin Luther, the first fundamentalist, maintained that any man who read the Holy Scriptures with a sincere desire to comprehend their contents could know the truths of divine revelation. In contrast the Catholic Church maintained that no man could know the truths contained in the Holy Bible unless they were properly interpreted by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Divine revelation came, in the Catholic Church, from scripture and tradition properly interpreted by the Church. In theory, I agree with the Catholic Church in that it seems rather dicey to allow individuals to pursue the Gospels on their own and come up with a proper metaphysic. But in practice, I agree with Martin Luther, because from personal experience and observation, I have learned that an individual has a better chance alone with his Bible than he does with the ‘pope-to-bishop-to-parish-priest-to-parishioner’ system. But the fundamentalist and the Roman Catholic have both overlooked the one element of the faith that is anterior to the acceptance of the inerrancy of scripture or the acceptance of the inerrancy of the Church’s interpretation of scripture. That overlooked element is the essential element: the human factor. In jettisoning the European cultural heritage, which is done when anyone mentioning the words ‘white’ or ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or using phrases like ‘white man’s burden’ is lumped with Hitler, the fundamentalist and the ‘inerrancy of the Magisterium’ Roman Catholic deprive man of his basic intuition about the nature of reality. Contained within the European cultural heritage is the truth that there is first that divine intimation in our heart and then the sympathetic connection with a divine element in the hearts of our kith and kin. Without that intuition and sympathy, we have no way of knowing or of caring about the truths of divine revelation.

It seems, to the fundamentalist, that he can jettison the 19th century Southern whites and the ‘white man’s burden’ type of Brit of the 18th and 19th century. “They are mere dross, forerunners of Hitler,” fundamentalists Falwell and Morris maintain. (The Catholic jettisons Cortez.) “All we need is the Holy Bible.” But the Bible is an unopened book, and the Roman Catholic Church is an empty building without the spirit and blood of the old European.

It is ironic that the fundamentalist, who deplores the liberal’s faith in evolution, is compact with him on the issue of the European cultural heritage. Both maintain that the European’s actions toward other races and his intuitions about the nature of reality were in error. But then how can we have faith in anything? If the one civilization that took Christ into its bosom is not essentially correct about the nature of man and his relation to God, then aren’t we all doomed to either Beckett’s despair or Montaigne’s skepticism?

The fundamentalist is certainly correct; the evolutionists must be opposed. But he is not fundamental enough. Man is a fish out of water if he is severed from his fundamental intuitions about the nature of reality. The European cultural heritage confirms our heartfelt intuition that Christ is the focal point of human history. If we are severed from that heritage of the white man, we will descend to the spiritual level of the apes whom Darwin says are our progenitors. Presumably the fundamentalists would not like to see that happen, but then they should stop trying to Negroize Christianity and return instead to the segregationist, hierarchal, fundamental faith of their European forefathers.